Doug Welsh;66513 wrote:

Much discussion has been recorded in these forums on how certain aspects of European Heraldry are held by some to conflict with American ideals and beliefs.  Similar discussion has been recorded on whether heraldry itself violates those same ideals and beliefs.

I think this most recent discussion is a case of you trying to both have your cakes and eat them, too.

 

The SoC is , to a certain degree, hereditary, as are many baronetcies in the UK, where, I understand, one may have to prove one’s right to the use of the title….  And some decorations in the US Armed Forces are clearly analogous to decorations in the UK which are often seen suspended from shields.

 

Frankly, if you are as true to your egalitarian beliefs as some of you claim to be (that’s "All Americans", not just members of this forum), I think you should either accept anything for which a "reasonable case" may be made, or deny them all.  If a "chief" is an additament of honour, then all should avoid them or all should use them.  If a DSO can be hung from a shield, so should a CMH, as both are EARNED but the SoC medallion should not because it is "inherited" like titles and Red Hands in cantons and supporters and helms of other styles than "Esquires" only for all.

I agree with what Doug has written, for I think it is quite logical.

The matter has quite expectedly strayed far from where it was when first opened by Joseph.

It seems to me the question is whether the guidelines reflect what American heraldry should be or whether they reflect what American heraldry traditionally has been.

In general, discussions here about right to arms, granting authorities, etc., have tended to draw much evidence from historic practice, since there may never have been any applicable or enforceable law of arms.

The Society of the Cincinnati stands almost unique because it partakes of qualities of a fraternal organization, a chivalric order, and an inherited noble estate, yet it is not exactly any of these things. Founding fathers like Jefferson and Franklin instantly recognized that the society was inconsistent with their view of the ideals of the new American republic.  It is much like an old world institution existing in the new world, and as such, it is an anomaly. Nevertheless it exists.

If one asks, is an inherited ornament with a nobiliary quality dependent from the shield, consistent with the principles of democratic equality, I think the answer is no. However, this is an argument based on principles.

Using this argument with the Cincinnati, by extension, could open up the whole field of heraldry to a similar criticism, because heraldry has strong aristocratic associations and connotations.

If one asks if it is traditional in the American context for this particular inherited ornament with a nobiliary quality to be depended from the shield, the answer is uncertain, since the one example Joseph cited is insufficient to draw a conclusion. This is the argument from history, and the one most often drawn upon to justify any heraldry whatsoever in America.

I think Joseph realizes that if we abandon the principle of precedent, then the matter of American heraldry is on much shakier ground. So the appeal to consistency may carry quite a broad brush. Do you mean consistency to history or consistency to principle?

Kind regards,

Charles

Is not American heraldic practice doomed to err on the side of liberty? There is nothing to prevent any American armiger from adorning his/her arms with as much bling as can be crowded into the available space. What can we say but that we more refined types find this in bad taste? De gustibus…

Perhaps all we should say is that, in American usage, only the shield and crest count as constituting of a coat of arms. Everything else (in the American context) is optional ornamentation.

Dohrman Byers;66521 wrote:

Is not American heraldic practice doomed to err on the side of liberty? There is nothing to prevent any American armiger from adorning his/her arms with as much bling as can be crowded into the available space. What can we say but that we more refined types find this in bad taste? De gustibus…

Actually, no, we are not doomed by liberty to the path you suppose.  Finn and Swiss heraldry, and their outlook, seems to indicate that heraldic liberty can also result in self-imposed modesty.  Looking at the Finn heraldic ten commandments, for example, we see simplicity of form that reflects the national ethos and personality, which departs and evolves from their Germanic heraldic roots.

Our guidelines should reflect our American ethos—the spirit of our culture.  It is not British, even though some want it to be.  It is something else, and when the guidelines are more developed (perhaps simplified!), the American, not the British, ethos will shine through.

Michael Swanson;66528 wrote:

Our guidelines should reflect our American ethos—the spirit of our culture.

As I said: BLING! Restraint and modesty have never impressed me as particularly characteristic of American culture.

Michael Swanson;66528 wrote:

Our guidelines should reflect our American ethos—the spirit of our culture.  It is not British, even though some want it to be.  It is something else . . .

The American ethos is something else, and I think we’re all glad for that, but its historic core and enduring mentality do derive from the (actually rather heterogeneous) cultures of Great Britain (cf. David Hackett Fischer’s Albion’s Seed: Four English Folkways in America and Bound Away: Virginia and the Westward Expansion).  There are any number of other influences, obviously, including the land, but it’s the intermingling of these with the British core—the Puritan, the Cavalier, the Quaker, and the Borderer—that yields Americanness. Culturally, I think Americans are all a little Jewish, a little Sicilian, a little Irish, and a little Black, at a minimum, but more than they’re any of those things, they’re British.

Charles E. Drake;66518 wrote:

The Society of the Cincinnati stands almost unique because it partakes of qualities of a fraternal organization, a chivalric order, and an inherited noble estate, yet it is not exactly any of these things. Founding fathers like Jefferson and Franklin instantly recognized that the society was inconsistent with their view of the ideals of the new American republic.  It is much like an old world institution existing in the new world, and as such, it is an anomaly. Nevertheless it exists.

This succinctly expresses the SoC’s cherished view of itself—a view embraced by some who have studied it, too, like Guy Stair Sainty—and the problem some Americans have always been apt to have with it. But on the subject of the Founding Fathers, it’s probably worth reminding parties to this discussion that Washington himself was the President General of the SoC before he was President of the U.S., and that Hamilton, Marshall, and others were members.

Could we move this discussion forward by asking ourselves what Washington would have to say?

I’m not so good at answering questions like that, but I did find another example of the insignia of the Cincinnati pendant from a shield, although it is not an American example.  This from the site run by, or associated with, our own Michael Medvedev.

The arms of Admiral de Traversay (1754-1830):

http://the.heraldry.ru/images/travbp.jpg

This is obviously a very early example, dating from about 1807-1816. The admiral is currently represented by his 3x great grandnephew, the Marquis de Traversay (French Society).

/Charles

Fred White;66546 wrote:

Could we move this discussion forward by asking ourselves what Washington would have to say?

A very sensible question to ask.

The hereditary nature of the Cincinnati, implying the creation of a privileged caste,  bothered Washington immensely, and he apparently made his acceptance of the post of president-general contingent upon eliminating hereditary membership among other reforms.  At least he argued strenuously on behalf of that view in May 1784:

Quote:

Discontinue the hereditary part in all its connexions, absolutely, without any substitution which can be construed into concealment, or a change of ground only; for this would, in my opinion, encrease, rather than allay suspicions.

***

No alterations short of what is here ennumerated will, in my opinion, reconcile the Society to the Community—whether these will do it, is questionable. Without being possessed of the reasons which induce many Gentlemen to retain the order or badges of the Society, it will be conceived by the public that this order (which except in its perpetuity still appears in the same terrific array as at first) is a feather we cannot consent to pluck from ourselves, tho’ we have taken it from our descendants—if we assign the reasons, we might I presume as well discontinue the order.

See more analysis of the background and follow-up at http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/confederation/cincinnati.html

We also know that the controversy about the nature of the Cincinnati was still haunting him when William Barton proposed an official heraldic institution four years later.  Washington wrote on September 7, 1788:

Quote:

I have once been witness to what I conceived to have been a most unreasonable prejudice against an innocent institution, I mean the Society of the Cincinnati.  I was conscious, that my own proceedings on that subject were immaculate.  I was also convinced, that the members, actuated by motives of sensibility, charity, and patriotism, were doing a laudable thing, in erecting that memorial to their common services, sufferings, and friendships; and I had not the most remote suspicion, that our conduct therein would have been unprofitable, or unpleasing, to our countrymen.  Yet have we been violently traduced, as to our designs; and I have not even escaped being represented as short-sighted in not foreseeing the consequences, or wanting in patriotism for not discouraging an establishment calculated to create distinctions in society, and subvert the principles of a republican government.  You will recollect there have not been wanting, in the late political discussions, those, who were hardy enough to assert, that the proposed general government was the wicked and traitorous fabrication of the Cincinnati.

At this moment of general agitation and earnest solicitude, I should not be suprised to hear a violent outcry raised, by those who are hostile to the new constitution, that the proposition contained in your paper [to create a national heraldic institution] had verified their suspicions, and proved the design of establishing unjustifiable discriminations.  Did I believe that to be the case, I should not hesitate to give it my hearty disapprobation….  For myself, I can readily acquit you of having any design of facilitating the setting up an "Order of Nobility."  I do not doubt the rectitude of your intentions.  But, under the existing circumstances, I would willingly decline the honor you have intended me…

It would seem from these statements that Washington would have been loath to treat the society as anything more than a fraternal organization of old comrades, and would specifically have shunned Guy Sainty’s comparison of it to European nobiliary bodies.

But whether that has anything in particular to do with displaying the society’s badge with a coat of arms is not entirely clear to me.

http://freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~wcarr1/Lossing1/29-25.gif

SOCIETY OF THE CINCINNATI. – MEMBERS’ CERTIFICATE 63
Quote:

[endnote]63 This engraving is a fac simile of a certificate, about one fourth the size of the original, which is thirteen inches and a half in breadth, and twenty inches in length. The originals are printed on fine vellum. The plate was engraved in France by J. J. le Veau, from a drawing by Aug. le Belle. I am indebted to the late James G. Wilson, son of Ensign Wilson, named in the certificate, for the use of the original in making this copy. The former was engraved on copper; this is engraved on wood. The design represents American liberty as a strong man armed, bearing in one hand the Union flag, and in the other a naked sword. Beneath his feet are British flags, and a broken spear, shield, and chain. Hovering by his side is the eagle, our national emblem, from whose talons the lightning of destruction is flashing upon the British lion. Britannia, with the crown falling from her head, is hastening toward a boat to escape to a fleet, which denotes the departure of British power from our shores. Upon a cloud, on the right, is an angel blowing a trumpet, from which flutters a loose scroll. Upon the scroll are the sentences Palam nuntiata libertatis, * A. D. 1776. Fædus sociale cum Gallia, A. D. 1778. Pax: libertas parta, A. D. 1783: "Independence declared, A. D. 1776. Treaty of alliance with France declared, A. D. 1778. Peace! independence obtained, A. D. 1783."

Upon the medallion on the right is a device representing Cincinnatus at his plow, a ship on the sea, and a walled town in the distance. Over his head is a flying angel, holding a ribbon inscribed Virtutis præmium "Reward of virtue." Below is a heart, with the words Esto perpetua: "Be thou perpetual." Upon the rim is the legend, Societas Cincinnatorum Instituta A. D. MDCCLXXXIII.: "Society of the Cincinnati, instituted 1783." The device upon the medallion on the left is Cincinnatus with his family, near his house. He is receiving a sword and shield from three senators; an army is seen in the distance. Upon the rim are the words Omnia relinquit servare rempublicam: "He abandons every thing to serve his Country" (referring to Cincinnatus).

 

Source HERE

The author of the source I cite, Lossing, misidentifies the Flag of the Order (which has blue stripes) for the flag of the Union: "...The design represents American liberty as a strong man armed, bearing in one hand the Union flag...."

—Guy

Joseph McMillan;66550 wrote:

It would seem from these statements that Washington would have been loath to treat the society as anything more than a fraternal organization of old comrades, and would specifically have shunned Guy Sainty’s comparison of it to European nobiliary bodies.

 

But whether that has anything in particular to do with displaying the society’s badge with a coat of arms is not entirely clear to me.

I can’t much object to Joe’s interpretation of these selections of Washington’s early thoughts on the Society. I would simply note that, evidently, Washington didn’t feel strongly enough to leave, denounce, or seek the dissolution of the Society, despite the fact that the majority decided to keep it hereditary. Now, I’m not positive on the chronology. Washington might’ve died before the members decided once and for all to maintain the hereditary aspect of the Society (if memory serves, they did vacillate on that for a time), and thereby been deprived of his final say, as it were, but the Institution , dated 13 May 1783, did include the following:

Quote:

To perpetuate, therefore, as well the remembrance of this vast event, as the mutual friendships which have been formed, under the pressure of common danger, and in many instances cemented by the blood of the parties, the officers of the American army do hereby in the most solemn manner, associate, constitute and combine themselves into one SOCIETY OF FRIENDS, to endure so long as they shall endure, or any of their eldest male posterity, and in failure thereof, the collateral branches, who may be judged worthy of becoming its supporters and Members.

Later in the document, we find this:

Quote:

And as there are, and will at all times be, men in the respective States eminent for their abilities and patriotism, whose views may be directed to the same laudable objects with those of the Cincinnati, it shall be a rule to admit such characters, as Honorary Members of the Society, for their own lives only

I would say the emphasis here on the temporal limitations of honorary membership underscore the centrality of hereditary membership to the Society’s original self-concept.

In any event, Washington did agree to lead the Society, and led it until his death 16 years later (11 years after the second quotation Joseph posted), so it would be incorrect to conclude that his involvement was somehow reluctant, whatever concerns he may have voiced at isolated moments. It is reported that he was very active on the Society’s behalf.

Like Joseph, I don’t know what any of this means for the heraldry question.

On the tradition side of the matter, it does look like there’s a steady trickle of evidence that armigers have been displaying the eagle beneath their shields across the centuries, although it should probably be noted that the Marquis de Traversay was an original member, and that Joe has been making a distinction between palatability of their practices and those of hereditary members.

Guy Power;66553 wrote:

SOCIETY OF THE CINCINNATI. – MEMBERS’ CERTIFICATE 63

FWIW, I believe they’re still using the same die, designed by l’Enfant, for at least the framing design, because new membership certificates look exactly like this.

I don’t see any obvious implications of the design for heraldic practice, but some inferences might be possible.

Charles E. Drake;66518 wrote:

. . . Franklin instantly recognized that the society was inconsistent with their view of the ideals of the new American republic.

Is it not the case that Franklin was one of the "characters" who wound up accepting honorary membership in the Society?

Fred White;66554 wrote:

I would simply note that, evidently, Washington didn’t feel strongly enough to leave, denounce, or seek the dissolution of the Society, despite the fact that the majority decided to keep it hereditary. Now, I’m not positive on the chronology. Washington might’ve died before the members decided once and for all to maintain the hereditary aspect of the Society (if memory serves, they did vacillate on that for a time), and thereby been deprived of his final say, as it were, but the Institution , dated 13 May 1783, did include the following:

I’ve never researched any of this in detail, but my understanding from looking through the documents available on line last night is that Washington was asked to head the organization well after it was formed.  He raised his concerns about the hereditary element (as well as some other features) in connection with accepting the position, and it sounds as if the national meeting agreed with his proposed amendments, but they were never acted upon by the state societies.

Quote:

In any event, Washington did agree to lead the Society, and led it until his death 16 years later (11 years after the second quotation Joseph posted), so it would be incorrect to conclude that his involvement was somehow reluctant, whatever concerns he may have voiced at isolated moments. It is reported that he was very active on the Society’s behalf.

I’m not sure how exactly to characterize his involvement.  He doesn’t seem to have objected to the hereditary principle as such, as much as he objected to any effort to develop invidious class distinctions based on hereditary entitlement to membership.  Furthermore, he seems to have been scrupulous about allowing the members to make decisions on such issues rather than issuing diktats from the top down, and he was also very reluctant to fracture the brotherhood of the officer corps over such matters.  Unlike some subsequent politicians one might think of, Washington understood that most things are balances between good and good or evil and evil, not good and evil.  Or, as Mick Jagger would put it, you can’t always get what you want.

Quote:

On the tradition side of the matter, it does look like there’s a steady trickle of evidence that armigers have been displaying the eagle beneath their shields across the centuries,

But, until relatively recently, only on the French side, no?  In France, the society actually did become a de facto order, which was entirely consistent with French social norms of the time.

Quote:

although it should probably be noted that the Marquis de Traversay was an original member, and that Joe has been making a distinction between palatability of their practices and those of hereditary members.

No, not really.  Obviously there are no original members reading our guidelines today.  The question, I think, is whether there is any justification for treating the Cincinnati insignia differently from the badge of any other private society.  I’m still mulling over the arguments on that.

Joseph McMillan;66560 wrote:

. . . it sounds as if the national meeting agreed with his proposed amendments, but they were never acted upon by the state societies.

That rings a bell, actually, and is certainly consistent with the dynamics of the Society.

Quote:

He doesn’t seem to have objected to the hereditary principle as such, as much as he objected to any effort to develop invidious class distinctions based on hereditary entitlement to membership.

Well, I can’t be sure, but I don’t think many members of the Society wanted to create invidious class distinctions in the legal, British sense, whatever suspicions the hereditary clause in the Institution might have raised.

Quote:

Furthermore, he seems to have been scrupulous about allowing the members to make decisions on such issues rather than issuing diktats from the top down, and he was also very reluctant to fracture the brotherhood of the officer corps over such matters.  Unlike some subsequent politicians one might think of, Washington understood that most things are balances between good and good or evil and evil, not good and evil.

Point well taken, but insofar as he was willing to fracture an empire, one supposes that if he felt strongly enough . . .

Quote:

Or, as Mick Jagger would put it, you can’t always get what you want.

Yep, whether it’s dope or additaments.

Quote:

But, until relatively recently, only on the French side, no?

I’ve only seen what you’ve seen, so I don’t know.

Quote:

In France, the society actually did become a de facto order, which was entirely consistent with French social norms of the time.

But wouldn’t it’s being a de facto order in France be sufficient reason to permit the eagle pendant from a shield aux Etats-Unis?

Quote:

No, not really.  Obviously there are no original members reading our guidelines today.  The question, I think, is whether there is any justification for treating the Cincinnati insignia differently from the badge of any other private society.  I’m still mulling over the arguments on that.

I must’ve miscommunicated. What I meant to say was that you’ve suggested that original members had a better claim to seeing the eagle as an honor than hereditary members, and that, therefore, it would be one thing for the eagle to turn up in an original member’s arms, but something else for it to be used the same way by a hereditary member. Did I misunderstand you?

Fred White;66564 wrote:

I must’ve miscommunicated. What I meant to say was that you’ve suggested that original members had a better claim to seeing the eagle as an honor than hereditary members, and that, therefore, it would be one thing for the eagle to turn up in an original member’s arms, but something else for it to be used the same way by a hereditary member. Did I misunderstand you?

You didn’t miscommunicate, although maybe you did misunderstand. Probably the miscommunication was mine.

I don’t think membership in the Soc really qualifies as an honor at all, at least in my understanding of the word "honor." If every officer in the Continental Army was eligible, then membership wasn’t much more of an honor than being entitled to a campaign medal.

My observation on the "in their own right" business in the law was merely intended as an aside. Other than as a matter of historical interest, it’s largely irrelevant in light of the military services’ having subsumed the Cincinnati insignia within a larger category of insignia of:

- "civic and quasi-military societies of the United States, and international organizations of a military nature." (Army)

- "military societies and other organizations." (Navy and Marine Corps)

- "military societies of the US that honor wars, campaigns, or expeditions in which the US was engaged." (Air Force)

Given that the guidelines don’t endorse the armorial display of everything that can be worn on a military uniform, I don’t know that the uniform regs necessarily shed any light on the question at hand anyway.